Which Macro ?Panny 45mm 2.8 or wait for Oly 60 mm 2.8?

Hi guys
As u know we gain a lot from this forum and one is the lust and quest for best lenses and other things .
We share our opinions and experiences and help each other to take decisions. So I need help for this one .I am thinking of adding macro lens to my kit and options include already available Pany 45 mm 2.8 and It seems its a pretty good one.
The other option is to wait for Olympus 60 mm 2.8
Please suggest what would be the best thing?I am not in a hurry at all and can wait ....
Cheers
Bhupinder

I'm planning to wait for the oly, mostly because I want the weather sealing to go with the OM-D I have on preorder. Also, I have ordered the oly 45/1.8, and don't feel like doubling up on the FL. It looks from your sig like you've got 45mm covered already, so it might be worth waiting for the reviews to see which one pans out better. In the meantime you could try out some legacy glass, either a macro lens or non-macro with extension tubes, to see how you like macro and get an idea of what FL you want to work with.

Hmmm, a lens that exists, or a lens that doesn't exist . . . The Panasonic has some shortcomings (cost, focus switch incomplete, no distance scale like I've seen on the Olympus mockups), but if you need a native lens in the near future, it's your only choice. If those above-mentioned features are a deal breaker for you, then consider getting an adapted lens for the time being. You'll likely find that you like it better anyway, as most macro is improved with manual focusing. 99% of my macro shots are me focusing the lens to a specific distance and then physically moving the camera forwards/backwards.

Hmmm, a lens that exists, or a lens that doesn't exist . . . The Panasonic has some shortcomings (cost, focus switch incomplete, no distance scale like I've seen on the Olympus mockups), but if you need a native lens in the near future, it's your only choice. If those above-mentioned features are a deal breaker for you, then consider getting an adapted lens for the time being. You'll likely find that you like it better anyway, as most macro is improved with manual focusing. 99% of my macro shots are me focusing the lens to a specific distance and then physically moving the camera forwards/backwards.

Click to expand...

One not so nice thing about the 60/2.8 (at least from the mockups) is that it is not internal focus. Even more so than the 4/3 50/2, its length increases greatly at near focusing distances.

Okay, it's time to let my ignorance out of the box about this thread and Oly/Panasonic native lenses in general.

Are the two brands interchangeable as long as they are µ4/3 mounts? I have a G3 and I'm planning on a macro as my next lens purchase. Am I understanding correctly that I'll get the same functionality with either brand on my camera, for instance, a Olympus 45mm 1.8 or the Panasonic 45mm 2.8 (ignoring the obvious difference).

Okay, it's time to let my ignorance out of the box about this thread and Oly/Panasonic native lenses in general.

Are the two brands interchangeable as long as they are µ4/3 mounts?

Click to expand...

Yes, and any other m4/3 mount lenses as well (e.g. Sigma).

I have a G3 and I'm planning on a macro as my next lens purchase. Am I understanding correctly that I'll get the same functionality with either brand on my camera, for instance, a Olympus 45mm 1.8 or the Panasonic 45mm 2.8 (ignoring the obvious difference).

Click to expand...

Well, both lenses will work (autofocus, auto-aperture, etc.), so basic functionality is the same.

Okay, it's time to let my ignorance out of the box about this thread and Oly/Panasonic native lenses in general.

Are the two brands interchangeable as long as they are µ4/3 mounts? I have a G3 and I'm planning on a macro as my next lens purchase. Am I understanding correctly that I'll get the same functionality with either brand on my camera, for instance, a Olympus 45mm 1.8 or the Panasonic 45mm 2.8 (ignoring the obvious difference).

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yes, both panasonic and olympus lenses are compatible with cameras from either brand.

ps - the oly 45 isn't suitable as a macro lens unless you plan on adding a conversion lens.

Thanks! I thought I was understanding correctly, but thought it better to ask!

I'm pretty sure I'm going with the Panasonic...once I scrape together the money!

Click to expand...

If you want to be economical (but possibly not get the same results), you could always grab a pana 14mm from the classifieds (or ebay) for around $175, and one of Panasonic's new/upcoming macro converter lenses (which I think will retail for around $120ish).

If you want to be economical (but possibly not get the same results), you could always grab a pana 14mm from the classifieds (or ebay) for around $175, and one of Panasonic's new/upcoming macro converter lenses (which I think will retail for around $120ish).

Click to expand...

I wouldn't really advice it. You get huge amounts of perspective distortion with a wide-angle macro combination like that. The effect is interesting the first few times, but it gets old fast.

A legacy macro won't have autofocus, but the focal lengths will be much more practical.

Adapters are advised. But you can also free hand it, making a poor mans lens baby, focusing by moving the camera back and forth.

Click to expand...

I would just buy the adapter, they're like $20 or something and holding a lens in front just seems to be asking for trouble

Also from what I've seen it looks like the Oly 60 doesn't change it's (quite large) length when focusing. People used to just kind of ignore the PanaLeica 45 because it was too expensive. Now that the Oly 45 has come out though the price has gone down and I would say OIS and compact 1:1 are worth the $1-200 price difference.

I'm waiting for the Oly 60mm, supposed to be 1:1 macro and it's 60mm so get more magnification at macro and the 60mm focal length suits me better as a general lens, it works in well with my other lenses meaning I'll have 9-18, 25, 60 and 100-300.

One not so nice thing about the 60/2.8 (at least from the mockups) is that it is not internal focus. Even more so than the 4/3 50/2, its length increases greatly at near focusing distances.

Click to expand...

That's actually good news in my book. It means that the effective focal length may not be shortened as much or maybe not at all when focussing closer. The Panny 45/2.8 seems to do that and that's one of the reason I haven't bought it yet. I prefer older macro lenses like the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 and the Minolta MD 100/4, they keep their focal length up close.

That's actually good news in my book. It means that the effective focal length may not be shortened as much or maybe not at all when focussing closer. The Panny 45/2.8 seems to do that and that's one of the reason I haven't bought it yet. I prefer older macro lenses like the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 and the Minolta MD 100/4, they keep their focal length up close.

Click to expand...

Looks like I was wrong on this - the 60/2.8 does appear to be internal focus. The size and shape are a little odd, but from the pictures it doesn't appear to extend.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.